Monday, January 08, 2007

impeach at the beach

"The historically consistent and pervasive incompetence of the Bush government is in no way limited to the armed forces, indeed the inability of every important agency to do its own job and to function effectively with others is something of a perfect global storm, for which I know no US precedent. Perhaps they are reforming? Nope, hacks and ideologues are still being given corner offices even after the election. Science is still being muffled and kneecapped, and good people are leaving the building. This complete lack of basic human leadership resources up and down the whole enterprise is the reason the Iraq escalation will founder in blood and humiliation."

"What has amazed me over the last year is that no one has noticed that the right blogs are shrinking in both power and influence. Because, let's face it, Malkin writes for shit, Instacracker is a coward who won't stand behind the ideas he pushes, Red State is filled with children who think Johnny Rebel is funny, and LGF is one poster's fake anthrax mailing's arrest from being Stormfront in green."

"There are big doings in the intel community that may signal the start of a new effort to cook the books to justify an attack on Iran. Let's start with John Negroponte's move to State Department. I am told by a knowledgeable friend that Negroponte was pressured by the White House to take the job at State. The exodus of key State Department personnel (e.g., Deputy Secretary Zoellick, Counselor Phil Zelikow, and Coordinator for Counter Terrorism Hank Crumpton) left Condi twisting in the wind. Negroponte gives Condi one of the most experienced foreign service officers in the State Department's history.[]Clapper and McConnell are worrisome choices because they are known in the intelligence community as guys willing to give their customers what they want. Unlike Negroponte, who took a pretty tough analytical stance dismissing the imminence of an Iranian threat, Clapper and McConnell will be more than willing collaborators in making a case that Iran is a serious, immediate threat. If you want to cook the books then these guys can be master chefs."

* newsflash: apparently emptywheel's editor doesn't exist(meanwhile - you can read all abuot EW and her book at fdl - and keep an eye out for oldschool jayt in the comments, duking it out with all the kewl kidz.)

* the DEA is lying to Bill Weaver and NSWBC about the House of Death case - and they've invoked State Secrets Privilege, even though there's no national security issue.

"On Saturday, over one thousand protesters lie down on the sands of San Francisco's Ocean Beach - new Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's district - in order to spell out the message "IMPEACH!"[]A 2006 Zogby poll taken one year ago, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, found that 52 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?""

oh - you caught that, huh? Thought you would - gave you a shout in there somewhere.

Hell - even I didn't believe half of what I was saying - but I like to be a conversation starter.

That being said, there are a lot of way-too-high expectations of what may come of the Libby trial - and most especially, the salivating at seeing Cheney on the stand is misplaced.

Cheney's questioning will be small and tight - and unless Fitz is willing to recall him as his own witness (won't happen) then Fitz can only cross as to the questions asked on direct examination - which won't be much. Cheney's gonna walk away without a scratch - from this one.

(btw - I thought you would have outed me as jayt when, as oldschool, I came to your site and thoroughly trashed jayt for being less than respectful to oldschool's friends here).

well, contrary to what I said to EW, I, as Scoot's counsel, would most certainly put him on the stand. It will be a bitch - a huge, monstrous bitch, to do it. For to have to spend hours rehabilitating your own witness, before even beginning the substantive questioning, puts one into a hole from which - hell, I don't know if you can get out of that one, but it must be attempted.

I mean - think about it. You've got a guy on the stand, charged with previous perjury, lying under oath. Cross-examination (kindergarten level) says that your first question is "Well you were under oath before - you're under oath now - were you lying then or are you lying now?, and in the meantime, how are we supposed to know the difference?" Doesn't take a lawyer to know that that's your first question.

I (previously) made a living out of going against traditional wisdom - I damn near always put my guy on the stand. Let 'em see my guy - let 'em hear his side - then on closing we'll talk about reasonable doubt (which in my small opinion gets much larger after a jury has both seen and heard both parties).

I'm just gonna assume that Scoots' lawyers are good trial lawyers, that they're worth what they're being paid, and that that they can rehabilitate Scoots before his substantive testimony. But Russert's gonna kill them. Judy Miller - who knows what that traitorous, gelatinous bitch is gonna say? (which begs the question of whether a D.C. jury will believe a word that comes from her mouth).

And in another little side issue about which EW and I were speaking the other day - if Scoots gets up - claims no memory of the whole thing - THAT is how Fitz gets in the Wilson op-ed, annotated with Cheney's handwritten notes. (provided that it can be verified that Scoots has indeed seen it before)(and who know Cheney's handwriting better than Scoots?) He can verify the handwriting.

And if the op-ed with Cheney's handwritten notes on it get into evidence, that is the point at which Richard Bruce Cheney will leave the building. Try and stop him. Wanna go hunting?